An end to criminality?

monument

Now that Ray Burke is jailed, and the government is trying to change the law in retrospect to allow the state's stealing money off old people to become legal, is the FF/PD government willing to make a statement on an end to criminality within the workings of the state?

A Dub in Glasgo

Hell will freeze over before they even consider some of the things they do criminal

true

Thats a bit rich , coming from a fellow traveller of those who do not think that the murder , torture and secret burial of Jean McConville was a crime.

The FF/PD govt. is not perfect, but at least they are a democratic government and like all other democratic parties, generally make some good attempt to work within the law.

monument

The question still stands - when will the FF/PD government be willing to make a statement on an end to criminality within the workings of the state?

ReefBreak

Anyone that votes for the Shinners has no right to comment on criminality.

Will Sinn Féin ever expel anyone that is member of a terrorist organisation? Will Sinn Féin ever expel anyone that is convicted of a criminal act? How many members of Sinn Féin have murdered/maimed innocent men, women and children?

Nuttzz

The practice of taking money from old aged pensioners is 30 years old, it was not brought in by this government, all the main parties (FF,Lab,FG,DL,PD) when in governemnt supported this policy. This government has brought in a law to legalise the practice and to prevent 30 years worth of claims which would make the Army deafness claims look small.

What examples of criminality have you got that THIS GOVERNMENT has do (you have to do better than a 30 year old situtaion)

Villain

ReefBreak wrote:

Will Sinn Féin ever expel anyone that is member of a terrorist organisation? Will Sinn Féin ever expel anyone that is convicted of a criminal act? How many members of Sinn Féin have murdered/maimed innocent men, women and children?

Can you ever stay on topic, or let one thread go without bashing SF??? :rolleyes:

In fairness it would be difficult to blame anti SF people coming into this thread given the nature of the subject...

I'm astounded, by the way, at the comparison apparently being drawn by the thread starter between Vile attacks against people ie punishment beatings plus robberies(which regardless of who is acting on which organisations behalf or none are still not normal) and what democratically elected governments decide to do.

To be honest the comparison behind the thread wouldnt get past the vast majority of voters.

Villain

Who made the comparison??

In light of Ray Burke, a former Minister for Justice going to jail, I think the topic is relevant enough as long as its kept in context.

gandalf

I think what this thread demostrates is the way these Sinn Fein apologists try to justify the anti-social and illegal activities of their paramilitary wing. Thank god Chubbie Ahern has seen sense and put the boot in to that grinning snake Adams and his murderers.

Beating people senseless with studded baseball bats, kidnap and robbery as Earthman said there is no comparison with what democratically governments do. We can vote them out, we cannot get rid of the scum hiding behind balaclava's who are only supported by a minority in this country but claim to speak and act for us all.

Villain

gandalf wrote:

I think what this thread demostrates is the way these Sinn Fein apologists try to justify the anti-social and illegal activities of their paramilitary wing. Thank god Chubbie Ahern has seen sense and put the boot in to that grinning snake Adams and his murderers.

Where in this thread have any SF supporters justified Illegal activities? please provide quotes.

A Dub in Glasgo

gandalf wrote:

I think what this thread demostrates is the way these Sinn Fein apologists try to justify the anti-social and illegal activities of their paramilitary wing. Thank god Chubbie Ahern has seen sense and put the boot in to that grinning snake Adams and his murderers.

eh? others brought the issue of IRA criminality into the thread. If anything it is off topic

Continuing Threads
Replies should be kept on-topic. We realise that threads may naturally "drift", but there are limits.

If you wish to discuss a seperate issue which has arisen in a discussion, then take it to a seperate thread, and post a link in the original thread if you feel it appropriate.

gandalf

It is very clear to me in the wording why this thread was started and where the person who started it was coming from. If you have a problem go and complain to the admins.

gandalf

irish1 wrote:

Where in this thread have any SF supporters justified Illegal activities? please provide quotes.

Not in this thread but in this forum for the last couples of months we have seen SF/IRA Apologists justify murder and robbery because it was for the cause.

As for finding quotes go look for them yourself you know the threads, you posted in them, personally I do not want to trawl through that manure again.

Villain

gandalf wrote:

Not in this thread but in this forum for the last couples of months we have seen SF/IRA Apologists justify murder and robbery because it was for the cause.

As for finding quotes go look for them yourself you know the threads, you posted in them, personally I do not want to trawl through that manure again.

Hold on a minute you said

gandalf wrote:

I think what this thread demostrates is the way these Sinn Fein apologists try to justify the anti-social and illegal activities of their paramilitary wing.

Also not every Sinn Fein supporter has tried to justify illegal activity.

Don't brand us with the same bad name, I personally detest FTA69 and his comments.

Zombrex

Firstly everyone stop talking about SF .. it is off topic ... next Bush will be brought into this thread :rolleyes:

Secondly, in response to the actual question, I don't understand what purpose the original poster believes such as statement would serve. It is not like FF were saying what Ray Burke was doing was acceptable and part of party policy that now has changed. This is all done in the shadows, it was always illegal and against offical party policy. I am not in any way justifying the actions of the people in the party that ignored what was happening. I am just pointing out that a statement from FF saying that out TDs will not commit crimes is pointless because their TDs were never supposed to commit crimes, and it didn't stop them

swiss

monument wrote:

The question still stands - when will the FF/PD government be willing to make a statement on an end to criminality within the workings of the state?

I don't think we will feasibly see an end to criminality within the workings of the state for a very long time, perhaps not even within our lifetimes. We all know that FF was mired in corruption in the past, and it would be naive to assume that this culture has dissipated completely because awareness of the issue has been heightened. "Lesser" forms of corruption are still in evidence, such as cronyism. The recent Monica Leech story underlines this.

Nevertheless, I do believe steps are being taken within the government to end, or at least mitigate the effects of corruption and criminality within the workings of government. Their motives for doing so may be less than altruistic with public confidence understandably shaken in light of various tribunal findings. In this light, it is important that the government appear to do something about criminality. Whether the real political will exists to end corruption or not is debateable.

How this relates to Sinn Féin/IRA is that in order to tackle criminality in the state, organised criminal gangs need to be targeted, exposed and brought down. It has long been my assessment that the IRA, and Sinn Féin by association are mired in criminality. The recent robbery in Belfast, and the discovery of Jean McCoulgan perfectly serve to corroborate this viewpoint.

So in another light, what the question really entails is "is there a political will to end the criminal activities of SF/IRA?". This is much trickier to answer, because in a sense SF/IRA have hijacked the peace process. A return to violence is unthinkable, so there is a temptation to accede to IRA criminality and thuggery because it is preferable to IRA paramilitary action. It would appear to be a case of better the devil you know than the other devil you know.

Fortunately there is a growing realisation in government that both criminality and paramilitarism are unacceptable in a democratic society. The question is: when are SF/IRA going to realise this? Given that they refuse to accept murder as a crime, I despair that they will never accept this basic reality.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Who made the comparison??

It is very clear

Sleepy

It'd be a pointless announcement really. What value would it have to anyone? I can personally think of a score of better uses of elected TD's time than making promises that those who want won't accept/believe anyway and that would be the equivalent of waving a red flag to a bull for the opposition.

Stupid idea.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

It is very clear

Yes, that you made the comparison.

ionapaul

Wicknight wrote:

Firstly everyone stop talking about SF .. it is off topic ...

...I don't understand what purpose the original poster believes such as statement would serve.

Well, the original poster posed the question for the following reason: he / she wanted to show the rest of us (particularly us damn Free-State loving, Republican-hating, traitorous, West Brit, non-beard wearing, capitalist, right wing bastards) that what Ray Burke and Liam Lawlor did without the sanction of their party leadership is equal or worse than what the IRA have been doing for the past 30 years with the approval / acceptance of the SF leadership.

The reason SF came into it within two replies is our ability to read between the lines - it wasn't very hard as the comparison wasn't very subtle.

Zombrex

ionapaul wrote:

he / she wanted to show the rest of us (particularly us damn Free-State loving, Republican-hating, traitorous, West Brit, non-beard wearing, capitalist, right wing bastards)

Hey!!! ... who is calling me non-beard wearing

Well if that was the point of the original post then I agree, it was pretty stupid. FF's behind the scenes inaction with reguard to Ray Burke and his like is nothing compared to SF public acceptance and approval of the IRA and the crimes against the state that they commit.

And also isn't Ray Burke in jail now? I don't think he will be becoming head of FF any time soon ... :rolleyes:

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Yes, that you made the comparison.

I refer the honourable gentleman to the Reply made earlier

monument

In reply to ionapaul, gandalf, and Earthman, at any level of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ I wasn’t trying to compare the IRA’s actions to any possible crime that may or may not have being portrayed by this governments, or individuals within the government, or even FF’s legacy of crime.

I most certainly wasn’t trying to justify any murder, robbery, or any other crimes or wrongdoings the IRA have committed.

Nuttzz wrote:

The practice of taking money from old aged pensioners is 30 years old, it was not brought in by this government, all the main parties (FF,Lab,FG,DL,PD) when in governemnt supported this policy.

And it continued after they entered government. But more importantly…

Nuttzz wrote:

This government has brought in a law to legalize the practice and to prevent 30 years worth of claims which would make the Army deafness claims look small.

This government is trying to make an illegally practice legal, just to make it clear..
THIS GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO MAKE THE ACT OF THE STATE STEALING MONEY FROM OLD PEOPLE LEGAL AFTER THE FACT.

Nuttzz wrote:

What examples of criminality have you got that THIS GOVERNMENT has do (you have to do better than a 30 year old situtaion)

It may be a ‘30 year old situtaion’ but it’s still going on.

swiss wrote:

I don't think we will feasibly see an end to criminality within the workings of the state for a very long time, perhaps not even within our lifetimes. We all know that FF was mired in corruption in the past, and it would be naive to assume that this culture has dissipated completely because awareness of the issue has been heightened. "Lesser" forms of corruption are still in evidence, such as cronyism. The recent Monica Leech story underlines this.

Nevertheless, I do believe steps are being taken within the government to end, or at least mitigate the effects of corruption and criminality within the workings of government. Their motives for doing so may be less than altruistic with public confidence understandably shaken in light of various tribunal findings. In this light, it is important that the government appear to do something about criminality. Whether the real political will exists to end corruption or not is debateable.

Any real political will is doubtful, as there seams to be a complete denial of anything but a few isolated cases of corruption, or any wrongdoings.

monument

monument wrote:

THIS GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO MAKE THE ACT OF THE STATE STEALING MONEY FROM OLD PEOPLE LEGAL AFTER THE FACT.

perhaps... I wouldnt call it stealing though unless it was pre-meditated-was it pre-meditated?? ie did they have foreknowledge that it was illegal? Didn't all governments impliment that policy so they're all criminals in your book??
I hope you dont mind but I in common with most don't go so melodratic about things

Furthermore they will be going to the electorate in about 2 and a half years who can throw them out if they disagree.
What voice does or did the electorate get with actual criminality??
Were the electorate of the whole island ever given a say in IRA criminality? or just ignored?
Ok no need even to ask that question they were ignored.
The electorate were never given a say either in the decisions taken by people(muggers,rapists,robbers etc etc) who decided to do actual everyday crime either...
With regard to your above example,its not hard to see who by far, who by infinite amounts, have the higher moral ground.

billy the squid

monument wrote:

to allow the state's stealing money off old people

lol I'm reminded by the attempted robbery which led to the death of Gerry McCabe. the bank truck contained money for old age pensioners did it not.

anyhoo the difference i see between the criminality in the IRA and the Criminality in Fianna Fail is that the Criminality in Fianna Fail is not on behalf of fianna fail, whree as the criminality in the IRA is on behalf of the IRA.

monument

Earthman wrote:

perhaps... I wouldnt call it stealing though unless it was pre-meditated-was it pre-meditated?? ie did they have foreknowledge that it was illegal?

Yes, they did know it illegal.

Earthman wrote:

Furthermore they will be going to the electorate in about 2 and a half years who can throw them out if they disagree.
What voice does or did the electorate get with actual criminality??
Were the electorate of the whole island ever given a say in IRA criminality? or just ignored?
Ok no need even to ask that question they were ignored.
The electorate were never given a say either in the decisions taken by people(muggers,rapists,robbers etc etc) who decided to do actual everyday crime either...
With regard to your above example,its not hard to see who by far, who by infinite amounts, have the higher moral ground.

Wow! So, now it’s ok for a government to do what it likes because if they commit a crime they would be doing so as elected criminals.

Nuttzz

monument wrote:

It may be a ‘30 year old situtaion’ but it’s still going on.

So that it then? one 30 year old example nothing else, nothing introduced by the current government then?

monument

So, if a new boss takes over a gang it's ok for him/her to continue what ever crimes the old boss did because s/he didn’t introduced the policies of implementing the crimes in the first place. And it makes it all ok. That's nice.

monument

monument wrote:

Yes, they did know it illegal.

When did they know it was illegal, from what point?

Wow! So, now it’s ok for a government to do what it likes because if they commit a crime they would be doing so as elected criminals.

Honestly Your posts are getting silly on this matter now-show me the intent, the deliberate plan, the minutes of meetings where it was decided that they knew about this yet decided to proceed to deduct from the peoples pensions for all those years and you *might* have some class of a point.

The government of the day are there to decide how best to run things, if the people decide that they have run them wrong, then they will turf them out.

Nuttzz

monument wrote:

So, if a new boss takes over a gang it's ok for him/her to continue what ever crimes the old boss did because s/he didn’t introduced the policies of implementing the crimes in the first place. And it makes it all ok. That's nice.

Come on, give me another example.... Bertie is no more gulity than John Burton or Garret FitzGerald who also allowed this practice. Do you want FG to renounce criminality also?

They shouldnt have been taking that money from the OAPs fair enough, all my grandparents had their books taken off them when they were in care homes so my family would be entitled to compo if this law doesnt pass the supreme court, however the funds would have to come from somewhere, normally its the department at fault that pays for the claims (e.g. the money for the army deafness claims came from the department of defences budget). I would rather the department of health spent the compo that my family would be due on the health services (especially the A&E departments) than take a cent